If you think (a) the Bonds trial couldn’t get any more cringe-worthy; and (b) I couldn’t find a way to make a second post about Barry Bonds’ testicles today, well, you’re quite mistaken.

After a couple of witnesses took the stand this morning, the jury was cleared and Bonds’ lawyers told the judge that Kimberly Bell — Bonds’ ex-girlfriend — testified about Bonds’ testicle shrinkage differently yesterday than she did before the grand jury. Back in 2003, Bonds’ lawyers say, Bell said Bonds’ testicles shrunk by 50%. Yesterday she said that they had shrunk, but not by as much.

The issue here is that Bonds’ lawyers are accusing the prosecution of withholding critical information. Specifically, that a key witnesses testimony was going to be different in front of the grand jury than it was at trial. While this doesn’t seem like a major deal on the surface — the less specificity we hear about Bonds’ testicles the better — the judge said this concerned her during the back-and-forth a few minutes ago. If the defense knew that Bell would present a moving target, it may have changed their entire case theme. And it would have made cross-examination of her a fundamentally different deal than the on-the-fly way it was dealt with yesterday.

The court is in recess at the moment, but it would not be at all shocking if at some point — maybe even after the break — the defense moved for a mistrial on the grounds that evidence was withheld. I’d be surprised if the motion was granted. There are ways to remedy this short of that, such as striking Bell’s testimony and/or making some sort of statement about it to the jury. But either way, it’s a serious issue and, even in the likely event that the case goes on, it could be damaging to the prosecution and could be a potentially major appeal issue for an appeals court that has been fairly pro-Bonds in previous rulings.

I’m sure if my balls shrunk, I’d know it, but I don’t think even I could quote an exact percentage. This woman, she’s something. I’m kinda hot for her now, especially with that picture. That face she makes looks as if I just asked her to measure my junk: perplexed, but intrigued.

Inconsistent testimony is not perjury, but it does show that she may be unclear on what she saw/thinks she saw. The way memory works, the statements closest to the observation generally would be the most accurate. Memories are anything but fixed and are surprisingly malleable. The problem here is that she was probably coached or had many discussions about her testimony before each event, and her phrasing and memories likely were shaped by the coaching just as much as it was by what she witnessed.

See, this is where it’s easy to get in the weeds as a non-lawyer. If her story changed between the grand jury and the trial as a result of coaching, how is that not perjury? I’m not arguing the point; I’m seriously curious how changing a story you told under oath is ok. Or are you just saying that because she went from something specific to something more vague, she’s safe from perjury? The credibility factor, as you say, is a different story altogether.

Craig Calcaterra - Mar 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Part of it is that, contrary to everyone who wants to fry Bonds, there is nuance to a perjury charge. It’s possible that differences in one’s testimony could be perjury. It’s also possible, however, that it’s merely a function of a person who is unsure of her facts. Or was/is trying to answer questions she thought to be different. Or maybe they were different questions. Or maybe her memory has faded since 2003 and she can’t be certain of what she’s saying now.

To figure all of that out you’d need to nail her down. Ask her questions about the discrepancies. Ensure that, in her mind, the questions that were being asked then are the same as the one being asked now. Was it a green light when the crash happened? “Yes,” the man said to the officer on the scene. “I think so,” he said on the stand a year later.

My guess is that no one goes after her for these discrepancies or tries to nail her down on the context. Just like they never did with Bonds yet, for some reason, went after him.

This is almost as funny as a bunch of Republican congressmen questioning Monica Lewinsky about her salacious behavior with the Prez while trying not to oscillate wildly from the midsection upward while yanking their puds to her answers.

I doubt this woman is qualified to be an expert on balls and stuff, so isn’t this testimony kinda just some fluff here? I’m sure the Prosecution will point out the fact that “No I’m not a doctor, I just know alot about nuts.” This is just ridiculous. Basically what are her qualifications here? Anyone?